For those who want to try the "d20 version" of the thief, here is the set of abilities that I was using for most of 2010, before I changed them to percentile skills.

Gaah, I can't get this to display right..."best attempt" here...hopefully someone can make sense of this. If I need to I'll figure out how to post an MS Word document so everyone can download the formatted version.

Since my goal here is to get playtest feedback, I would say give it a shot with your preferred option (% or d20)...and then try it "the other way"...and let me know how it goes and which you do prefer in actual game play.

Part of the point of my No Skills thread is involved here. I'd prefer the class die solution and get rid of the table if possible. Thieves should just be good at ability checks involving actions conducive to crime. PERIOD. The Judge then can determine if sneaking past a guard or making a disguise or hiding a box of jewels in a sewer drain is an ability check involving thievery and give him the bonus or not. In other words, enumerating all actions that are skullduggery is impossible. So list a few examples perhaps but don't imply the list is exclusive.

The obvious flaw with my own idea here is that adding a d3 to an ability check is basically +2 and that's awfully low for distinguishing thieves from the common riffraff. I'd prefer that all classes share the same class die progression for simplicity sake (d3/d4/d5/d6/d7) and it finally hit me. There's no reason why the thief can't roll TWO of his class dice and add them to the action die when making ability checks for tasks involving thievery. 2d3 is an extra +4 (on average) which almost offsets the Harley DC problem.

Part of the point of my No Skills thread is involved here. I'd prefer the class die solution and get rid of the table if possible. Thieves should just be good at ability checks involving actions conducive to crime. PERIOD. The Judge then can determine if sneaking past a guard or making a disguise or hiding a box of jewels in a sewer drain is an ability check involving thievery and give him the bonus or not. In other words, enumerating all actions that are skullduggery is impossible. So list a few examples perhaps but don't imply the list is exclusive.

The obvious flaw with my own idea here is that adding a d3 to an ability check is basically +2 and that's awfully low for distinguishing thieves from the common riffraff. I'd prefer that all classes share the same class die progression for simplicity sake (d3/d4/d5/d6/d7) and it finally hit me. There's no reason why the thief can't roll TWO of his class dice and add them to the action die when making ability checks for tasks involving thievery. 2d3 is an extra +4 (on average) which almost offsets the Harley DC problem.

Thieves also have their luck die that they can use, which is conveniently the same as the proposed class die. So to use +2d3 instead of +1d3 they would just need to burn a luck point. Thieves get some luck points back at the end of the day, so they would just need to be judicious in when they were spent. Also, I think Thieves should be automatically better even without the die roll-- I think they should be swift and silent when attempting to pick a lock, but a non-thief not so much. Same with climbing, I think Thieves should climb twice as fast as everyone else, so that they are at the top while everyone else is still scrabbling up the wall. Just make Thieves better at Skullduggery even before a die roll is called for.

It was stated elsewhere that Mr. Goodman is going to return to using DCs instead of % checks. I'm wondering if the Thief Skill checks will still be made in addition to standard skill checks. I think they still need to be divorced from skill checks (and which I still think they need to be referred to as Ability Checks.) I think one way to keep the intent (and spirit) of the % based checks is by using Static DCs on the charts instead of modifiers. Basically divide the % numbers by 5, and subtract from 20 (Not sure what to do with climbing sheer surfaces) This will do two things, keep them separate from general ability checks and standardize the thief skill checks. (I've never been a fan of scaling DCs. Difficulty should be reflected by circumstantial modifiers.) By converting the %s to a DC will also keep the probability the same.

For example, Sneak silently should be DC 16 at 1st lvl, DC 15 at 2nd, DC 14 at 3rd, etc. for a Thug or Assassin. *Ability and Armor modifiers would apply (as usual, but wouldn't have be multiplied by 5.)

So this is me finally catching up on all the threads created by the release of the Beta. (Miss me?)

This is the last thread because it is uber-long and I can't bring myself to read it all: What's the summary of pages 1 through 6?

Nothing conclusive other-than Mr. Goodman posting his original skill check modifiers per level for thieves and that he stated, somewhere, that he will be returning to d20 DC checks instead of % based checks.

Tons of alternative systems have been proposed, but nothing has "bit". My last post, if it wasn't clear, was to adopt the DCs, but make sure they're kept separate from general "skill checks" and using flat DCs instead of a list of modifiers. By basically converting the "new" % to DCs. I think that difficulty should be reflected by modifiers to the die roll (or different dice) instead of scaling the DC. (the math is the same, obviously, but it's more consistent with AC.)

Percentage thief skills only make sense if they advance by numbers other than 5% each level.

In OD&D almost every ability was +5% each level, for example, and racial bonuses were all +5%, +10% or +15%. All of those things scream "use a d20" at me. On the other hand, in OD&D the "climb walls" ability increased at +1% each level. Now that tells me we needed a percentile system.

I think our situation is like this. If the charts are designed to have +3% or +4% increments then a percentile system makes sense, but if they are all +5% go with the d20.

"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs, He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." -- Gary Gygax"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" -- Dave Arneson

I vote for unifiying all skill/abilities check.I like the rule for spell check (1d20 + Personality modifier + caster level) and i hope that, with some adaptations, this rule will be adapted for skill checks and thief skill checks

We don't need One [Unifying all skill/abilities check] to rule them all, One [Unifying all skill/abilities check] to find them,One [Unifying all skill/abilities check] to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

Perhaps you missed the point of my no skills chapter. Don't have a list of what a thief can do. Once you have a list, you also have an implied list of things he can't do. It is the same problem as the MDoA problem. Some people will believe that the 7 listed options are the only options warriors have with MDoA.

My other problem with percentile tables is they scream of being pulled-out-of-someone's-rear-end. 5th level find traps? 42%? Sounds good. Adjustment for 16 Agility? +5% looks good to me. The game already has an ability check system tempered by class niche protection. Why not reuse it?

There is no disservice worse than forcing "something different" onto each and every class just so that each class has "something different". In theory, given a sufficiently well described niche, creating a class for that niche does not mean that class must have some special subsystem. The variety of "what can he do" handled by ability checks could be something different enough.

We don't need One [Unifying all skill/abilities check] to rule them all, One [Unifying all skill/abilities check] to find them,One [Unifying all skill/abilities check] to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

We all saw how that went down!

Have a couple items, like thief's checks, unique, i.e. the % system.

If you like % system, play with Chaosium (excellent) games - sorryDCCRPG is an excellent opportunity to reconcile the fans of the OSR and those who want only "modern" games

I enjoy having a few things based on % simply for the reason that one can give increases or decreases in 1% increments, as opposed to 5% with the d20.

Seriously, tell something that happens in an RPG where having 1% granularity models reality better than the courser 5% granularity. Have you ever, for example, been about to throw a ball and think, if the wind were below 5mph it would increase my chances by 1%? Seriously? Remember every +1 or -3 in every RPG is arbitrary. Having less granularity makes it easier comprehend the difference. +4 x5 is 20% change, you can instinctively comprehend the gravitas of such a delta. +4 x1 is a 4% change. Compare 3% and 4%? Can you really feel the difference in real life?

I enjoy having a few things based on % simply for the reason that one can give increases or decreases in 1% increments, as opposed to 5% with the d20.

Seriously, tell something that happens in an RPG where having 1% granularity models reality better than the courser 5% granularity. Have you ever, for example, been about to throw a ball and think, if the wind were below 5mph it would increase my chances by 1%? Seriously? Remember every +1 or -3 in every RPG is arbitrary. Having less granularity makes it easier comprehend the difference. +4 x5 is 20% change, you can instinctively comprehend the gravitas of such a delta. +4 x1 is a 4% change. Compare 3% and 4%? Can you really feel the difference in real life?

Naturally not, and it's possible that you wouldn't be able to notice a 5% change, either.

For example, in baseball scouts have a really hard time tellling the difference between a .260 hitter and a .320 hitter just by observation. Over the course of a major league season (say, 600 at-bats) the difference is one or two hits per week at the most. Random hot and cold streaks hide this difference to even the most astute observer.

My point is that we're trying to create a RPG system and the dice allow us to vary those numbers to whatever degree we want. If the GM rolls the dice behind the screen, the player would have zero idea if his character advanced by 5% per level, 4% per level, 3%, or whatever. As a designer, however, the ability to use non-5% improvements could be a nice advantage.

Maybe you want something to increase by 10% over a three level span. With a d20 you have +1, +1, +0 to allocate how you like, but that means that one level gets nothing. With percentage dice I could use +3%, +3%, +4% and make it more uniform.

Not sayin' DCC has to be done either way, just saying that percetage dice have a certain design perk. Personally, I prefer to roll d20's than d100's, but that's not the issue.

"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs, He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." -- Gary Gygax"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" -- Dave Arneson

Have you ever, for example, been about to throw a ball and think, if the wind were below 5mph it would increase my chances by 1%? Seriously?

Friend, you are attributing to me far to fine a motor skill! Now if you had written something like, "Have you ever, for example, been about to throw a ball and think, 'Will I get close to the target, regardless of the silly wind?'" then I would be able to take your argument seriously!

To answer your question, 1% increments seem relevant to me when the PC is high level. At that point, the % increase in skill becomes smaller and smaller since the high level PC is reaching the tip of human perfection. The Climb Wall percentages in AD&D and the DCC beta are good examples, in my opinion.

To answer your question, 1% increments seem relevant to me when the PC is high level. At that point, the % increase in skill becomes smaller and smaller since the high level PC is reaching the tip of human perfection. The Climb Wall percentages in AD&D and the DCC beta are good examples, in my opinion.

The climb wall percentages in AD&D always were stupid. There were always -5 and -10 percentages for stuff like slippery walls or high winds. Thus the percentages stopping at 99% was silly. It should have kept going up so the REALLY high level thief could even overcome wind and oil slicked walls. If Elves can walk on the top of the snow, thieves can climb a water fall. "Tip of human perfection" is not meaningful here. I'm sure there are "impossible" feats of wall climbing done by people who aren't the tip of human perfection by a longshot. They just are very good at wall climbing.

I have to admit I really enjoy the DCC beta rules. It’s a great work and gives a taste of old times with new, intelligent, fun sounding, simple mechanisms. It really appealed to me and I would be glad to try it at my tables. And it probably won’t be a challenge to undust old 1st and 2nd ed scenarios within those rules …

Nevertheless, I am wondering why thief skills are not D20 … why use the old D100 rule … why don’t you just give bonus to them like with the Halfling sneak/hide bonus ? Why change the “bigger better” dice roll paradigm of the rules? If you want to restrict some skills to the thief class it’s ok. If only thief can pick pocket or pick locks so be it. But the D100 (under the score) seems odd at least, out of place at best. It feels like an artificial way to make the thief class “special” or romantically old school (thank you AD&D).

Another point, within the action dice explanation paragraph, for thieves and Halfling it is said that they can use the action dice for skills. Does it mean that they are the only one class that can use skills within a fight? But for thieves the action dice is D20 not D100 … on the other hand their class skills are D100 based … so? What skill or what action dice are we talking about?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum